How to form an anti-Islam front group

On February 27, 2015, in Articles, by natalt

by Henry Macdougall

I define a front group as an organisation (usually devoted to a social cause) which has been  founded by a political group wanting to keep its involvement out of the spotlight.

Before the end of the Cold War, most left-leaning front groups in the US were founded and operated surreptitiously by communists. The encyclopaedic Report of the Senate Fact-Finding Committee on Un-American Activities, 1948 : Communist Front Organizations (1948), published by the Californian state Senate in Sacramento, gives a (somewhat tedious) tallying of the hundreds of front groups formed by the US Communist Party in the 1920s, 1930s and 1940s – the report runs to over 500 pages.

It notes:

Many of these organizations will be publicly proclaimed to be in the interest of some worthy program. The organization ‘s self -professed goals may be high-sounding and humanitarian, but invariably it will be discovered that in any Communist front organization a heavy majority of the officers, the sponsors and the members of the committees will be found to have a record of affiliation with scores of other front organizations. Invariably it will be discovered that the particular organization in question, and all other organizations with which the leadership has affiliation, never criticize Communism or Russia and consistently follow and support pro-Russian and pro-Communist programs and policies.

Under the heading, ‘Organisations Classified by Proportion of Communist Influence’, we find this helpful summary:

All organized groups in America may be classified with respect to the proportion of Communist influence in six broad categories. These are :

(1) Communist created and controlled;

(2) Communist infiltrated and controlled ;

(3) Communist dominated, whether created or infiltrated;

(4) Communist infiltrated, but neither controlled nor dominated. In such organizations Communists operate to disrupt, confuse, delay and nullify the natural functions of the organization, which frequently may be in conflict with Communist programs ;

(5 ) Completely anti-Communist and Communist infiltrated only for purposes of espionage ;

(6) Miscellaneous. All other organizations, most of which Communists are unable to infiltrate or have no tactical reasons for infiltrating.

Organizations can be identified as to their status and classified in proportion to degree of Communist infiltration most easily on the basis of the organization’s responses to key political, economic and ethical
issues of the day.

The formation of a front group involves deception. The communists described in the Senate report act in secret: they found a front organisation and run it, but deny their involvement; usually, as camouflage, they appoint someone respectable from outside – a non-communist – as president. The front group undertakes activism – collects petitions, sends delegates to badger elected officials, raises funds, holds demonstrations – all for the communist cause, and, because of the noise it makes, it appears larger than it is. Only a handful of communists may fill the ranks of a front group, which can be quickly formed and quickly wound up once it is no longer needed. Communists often establish one front group, work it, dispose of it and then move on to create another. During the period of the Hitler-Stalin pact, communists formed a number of ‘peace’ groups demanding that the USA stay out of the war between Britain and Germany; after the German invasion of the USSR in June 1941, the communists dissolved the peacenik organisations – literally overnight – and formed new groups which called for US involvement in the war.

One might think that all this is ancient history, but this is not the case – political organisations today still use front groups. Hezbollah and Hamas founded and operated
Islamic charities to funnel money to jihadi soldiers – a practice endorsed by the Koran and Islamic tradition. On the Far Left, the notorious British ‘anti-racist’ gang, Unite Against Fascism (UAF), was founded by the Socialist Worker’s Party (SWP), the largest and most powerful Trotskyite party in Britain. Following standard communist practice, they made a non-communist – Doreen Lawrence, mother of the murdered Stephen Lawrence, a sort of black British Horst Wessel figure to the Left – honorary president.

These are two examples. One might ask, why the subterfuge – why form front groups? We can list a number of reasons, the first being that the founding organisation may bear a stigma. Not many people in the community may wish to lend support to communism or jihad, so the founders of a front group need to hide themselves behind a worthy cause – whether it be nuclear disarmament and peace, aid to widows, orphans and the disabled, or ‘fighting racism’. In 1942, the Germans formed anti-communist groups in occupied France, with the intention of turning the French public against communism and drumming up French support for the war against the Soviet Union; they didn’t want the French to know, of course, that it was the Germans who were pushing an anti-communist campaign. The founders of a front group believe that their cause is right, but know that many others don’t think that way; better, then, to conceal their involvement. This subterfuge allows them to spread their beliefs to more people.

Which brings us to the second reason why front groups are necessary: exposure. We know that many US communist parties and groups – usually Trotskyite and Maoist – were involved in the race riots and demonstrations of late 2014. They formed ‘social justice’ and ‘anti-racist’ front groups (some of which received funds from the Jewish billionaire George Soros). Nearly a hundred years before, US communists began to involve themselves in the civil rights struggle as a means of latching onto Afro-Americans – they believed that the American negro held great revolutionary potential. In 2015, they see the struggle for ‘justiss’ for Michael Brown and Eric Garner as an extension of the civil rights struggle and one that will pay big dividends. Brown and Garner provide American communism with an entry point. Simply put, the communists wouldn’t have gained the exposure – to large sectors of the Afro-American community, and to deluded white liberals (DWLs) as well – if they hadn’t insinuated themselves into the ‘justiss’ riots and demonstrations, because Maoism and Trotskyism don’t cut ice with most people.

All of this relates back to nationalism. In Australia, the nationalist movement – which encompasses a wide number of ideological persuasions – forms a subculture, sometimes a freakish one, and has trouble breaking out into the mainstream. Social engineering since the 1970s takes most of the blame for this. In the past, someone who believed that Australians should be the majority in their own country, and that Australia shouldn’t allow Chinese immigrants to usurp Australians as that majority, would have belonged to the Labor or Liberal party; nowadays, he finds himself banished to the margins – to the Far Right. Most Australians agree with the nationalist position, but the mainstream media, the churches, the trade unions, the politicians, the journalists, the academics, all pretend otherwise – that immigration restrictionism is for ‘racist freaks’. The result of this is that the nationalist activist has to watch his mouth when speaking to the members of the Australian public who, while agreeing with him on the subject of the Chinese, live in perpetual fear that ‘they’ (that is, the mainstream media, the politicians and other moral arbiters) might listening in. It’s natural, then, that when the nationalist activist doesn’t get a favourable response from the Australian public – and why should he, he’s placing them in danger from the powers that be – he turns inward. A wall builds up between him and ordinary people, he becomes isolated. As a result, he loses his objectivity and begins to lose his ability to see himself as others do. Many of the nationalist groups and individuals in the nationalist subculture simply don’t understand how frightening they can appear, and how abnormal, to others.

Certain segments of the Far Right, ten to fifteen years ago, acknowledged this problem – isolation from the masses –  and believed that the answer lay in expelling the ‘anti-Semites’ and the ‘neo-Nazis’ from the Australian nationalist movement. At the time, Nick Griffin and the BNP were riding high, and Griffin’s admirers attributed his success to his distancing himself from all the ‘Nazis’ and ‘Jew-haters’ in the British nationalist movement. If nationalists in Australia would only follow his example, they would break the barriers down between them and the general public.

In all fairness, this seemed to be a reasonable assumption to make. Most Australians don’t like Israel – in fact, hardly anyone likes Israel these days – but one mustn’t confuse this with anti-Semitism, no matter what the hysterics (Isi Liebler, Michael Danby, Jeremy Jones and other representatives of the Jewish community) say; likewise, it doesn’t entail that most Australians are willing to accept Holocaust Revisionism. The Australian Griffinites understood this; they understood that many ordinary people outside the nationalist movement found nationalism’s parade of eccentric and colourful characters, many of whom were openly anti-Semitic, off-putting. In their minds, the fortunes of nationalism could be revived if enough ‘decent’ nationalists disassociated themselves from the ‘Nazis’, ‘Jew-haters’, ‘Holocaust deniers’. By doing so, ordinary working-class and middle-class types would be lured into the movement. Nationalists would achieve long-awaited electoral success.

Did the strategy work? It didn’t. Purges and splits occurred, splinter groups and micro-parties were formed, and the so-called ‘Nazis’ and ‘Jew haters’ remained in place – they never were driven out. The wall between the nationalist groups and the ‘ordinary Australian’ looms as large as ever.

Some of the Griffinites were opposed to Chinese immigration, others weren’t – they only objected to immigration from the Muslim countries. But, if we scrutinise the ideology of both the Griffinites and non-Griffinites, we can detect an error. This is the mistaken belief that Australians possess a high degree of racial awareness and that, in turn, race-consciousness will serve to ignite a revolution against multi-culti and the liberal establishment (which has brought in hundreds of thousands of mainly Chinese and Indian immigrants into Australia every year). In other words, Australians hold – instinctively – to a white nationalism or to the racialism of the trade union movement and the Australian Labor Party a hundred years ago; if they feel that the racial purity of the Australian nation is being violated, they will revolt and turn on their oppressors the liberal multi-cultists, who want to turn the Australian people into a minority in Melbourne, Sydney and other cities. In my opinion, the theory is mistaken insofar as that it underestimates the power of material incentives. A hundred years ago, the Australian worker understood that Chinese immigration hurt him materially, and that it was in his material interest to oppose it; today, he understands that, whatever the cost of Chinese immigration and colonisation to him, the cost of opposing it is far greater – the Liberal and Labor parties have made sure of that. He feels he has no choice but to knuckle under.

That’s one flaw; the other is that the theory underestimates the Chinese immigrant and fails to take into account how slippery he is. Over the course of hundreds of years, the Chinese have emigrated to the Asian countries Cambodia, Thailand, Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia, Singapore, the Philippines, Korea. They have flourished in those countries by keeping their heads down and working hard. They don’t assimilate, they don’t provoke the host population and they ignore – because they manage to insulate themselves in ghetto communities – any racial hostility from the host population. By following a conquest by stealth strategy, they end Chinese-ifying large sections of the host country. We see the  same process occurring in Sydney and Melbourne. What do Australians do in response? The answer is, nothing: they look the other way – and in this, they follow the lead of the political establishment, which pretends that the process of Sinification isn’t happening.

Surprising as it may seem, many on the American Far Right hold high opinions of mestizo and Asian immigrants – they compare them favourably to Afro-Americans. In other words, Afro-Americans behave in such a way that they make Asians and mestizos look good. Having never lived in America, I can’t verify this. I can say for certain, however, that the Chinese immigrants in Melbourne and Sydney will never behave as rambunctiously as the Afro-Americans did in Ferguson, Missouri; that an Australian city mainly populated by Chinese will never end up in the same disordered state as a Detroit or a Birmingham, Alabama. And therein lies the problem. The Chinese immigrant doesn’t engage in obnoxious and anti-social behaviour; he doesn’t bring himself to the attention of the host population; in fact, he strives to make himself as unobtrusive as possible. Except in the field of commerce, he doesn’t interact with Australians at all. How, then, is he meant to bring about an explosion in Australian racial consciousness? How will he push the Australian workers to the brink and force them to revolt?

The Muslim immigrant, in contrast, presents an easy target. As noted in previous articles, he feels the need to make changes to his environment – to bring it in accord with Islam. Sharia requires the chador and the hijab; it requires halal food; it requires the installation of mosques and prayer washrooms in universities and colleges. We see from the latter example alone that Australia – like all Western countries with a large Muslim ‘minority’ – has already travelled far along the road to Sharia. It’s not going to stop any time soon. One of the problems with Sharia is that the Muslim ‘minority’ will never cease demanding more and more of it; certain jihadis are even willing to go to war so as to bring it to Western countries. See the recent Charlie Hebdo massacre, which was carried out for Sharia: the execution of satirists and critics of Muhammad forms part of the sunna, that is, Muhammad’s exemplary doings – Muhammad himself had some of his critics and mockers put to death. Incidents such as the Hebdo massacre will proliferate in the West in the years to come, and they always will meet with the same cavilling response. On the threat of violence, and – paradoxically – in the name of ‘tolerance’ and ‘diversity’, more and more compulsory Sharia will be introduced into Australian life. But this will benefit the Australian nationalist cause, as it will give Australian nationalist activists something to grab onto. Islam asserts itself constantly, makes itself conspicuous, and it draws as much attention to itself as possible. It seeks to conquer, like China, but unlike China, it undertakes its campaigns in a loud, spectacular manner.

Islam contains many facets: it could be said to be a state, a nation, a people, a race, a religion – and a political-intellectual doctrine. The latter is important. The Chinese don’t hold to any particular creed, philosophy, religion, idea; forty years ago, they could be said to adhere to the philosophy of Chairman Mao, China’s philosopher-king, but Maoism is long dead and buried. Muslims, on the other hand, do what they do in the name of an idea. This makes Islam easier for Australians to oppose. Forty years ago, Australian conservatives could have made an argument against excessive Chinese immigration on the grounds that Chinese immigrants would be surrogates of Mao and agents of Chinese communism. Nowadays, however, the Chinese don’t stand for any ‘ism’, and that makes things harder for conservatives. Chinese immigrants can’t be kept out on the grounds of race: that would be ‘racist’, and Australia, alongside the heroic Churchill and Roosevelt, fought a war against ‘racism’. Anti-Islam has gained some traction amongst the conservatives and mainstream media commentators, because Islam is an idea, and the debate can be shifted from the racial plane to the intellectual, ethical, moral and political.

What, then, would Australians find more congenial – a struggle against Islam or a struggle against China? At this stage – especially following the Sydney siege, the Paris massacre and now the shooting in Copenhagen (no doubt the pro-Muslim conspiracy theorists will insist that the shooting was a false flag carried out by Mossad and the CIA, designed to make Muslims look bad) – nationalists can extract more out of Islam than China. But I don’t want to be misunderstood. It is China, not Islam, that threatens the survival of the Australian nation most of all, and the number of Chinese, Indian and African immigrants exceeds that of the Muslim by far. And, as a nationalist, one can’t chicken out of the Jewish question or the topic of the Holocaust (did it or didn’t it occur?): we must face squarely up to both. In the final analysis, the problems of the Australian nation are compounded by the fact that multiple enemies are attacking the Western civilisation – from within – at the same time: it’s not only the Muslim immigrants, but the Jewish, African, Indian and Chinese who want to impose their culture at the expense of wiping ours out.

With that in mind, what I’m proposing here is the formation of anti-Islam front group, one which won’t be connected (ostensibly) with the existing nationalist groups and micro-parties and one which won’t draw in the same old faces that we’ve seen in the nationalist movement for the past twenty or thirty years. In other words, we need something like PEGIDA, but without the confused ideology of PEGIDA, and a PEGIDA adapted to Australian conditions.

Nationalism in Australia, rightly considered, is a grassroots mass movement – like the radical Left – which is not connected to the mainstream political parties. Like the Left, it can only grow so much before, at some point, it hits a ceiling, and like the Left, it finds it hard to reach the great mass of ‘ordinary people’ and thereby convert itself into a large mass movement. The nationalists claim to represent the ‘Australian nation’ and the ‘white race’, the leftists the ‘working class’, but neither creed boasts a large number of adherents – the whites and the workers, respectively, flock to neither. Certainly, voters don’t, and we can’t expect a communist or nationalist political party to win an election any time soon, or even present a challenge to the mainstream parties. But that’s how it should be, as the future of Australian politics lies in grassroots associations and movements.

It’s because of this doctrine of mine – the movement comes first, the party second – that I stipulate that any anti-Islamic front organisation should not endorse, or work on behalf, of any party in elections. Some in the nationalist movement want to dissolve the movement and turn it into an electoral organisation, which would – in turn – lead to its demise and its becoming a satellite of the Liberal Party. That would spell doom for nationalism. Not that anything should be held against parties, of course: it’s that, rightly considered, a party appears only as an outgrowth of a mass movement, not the other way around. The Labor Party was built upon the back of a lively working-class and socialist culture – on the trade unions, working-men’s associations and clubs and the like. Now it, and the trade union movement, find themselves in decline as less and less Australians are interested in participating in politics and trade unions.

The task before us, then, is to build an extra-parliamentary mass movement. How? The answer is concentration. A successful front group is devoted to a single issue, which is why any anti-Islam group should focus solely on Islam. It won’t spend any time on racialism, Australian nationalism, white nationalism, anti-Semitism, Holocaust and WWII Revisionism. These subjects need to be left off the table, as much as their exclusion will hurt some – no, a good many – in the nationalist movement. The intention is to draw in people from the wider Australian community – intellectuals, concerned citizens, even people of a liberal and feminist political persuasion – into the fold. Over time, one or two promising people may become involved in the group and do good work; these should be given a nationalist education – outside of the group’s auspices – later down the line. Chances are that such a person has never had the nationalist case – on race, the Jewish question, immigration, Holocaust Revisionism – put before him until that point. Perhaps he’ll bite, perhaps he won’t, but the fact is he would never have encountered nationalist ideology had it not been for the front group.

One objection to my proposal is that it’s hard to carry out – Islam can’t be understood, let alone mastered, and so how can one speak on the subject authoritatively? I’ll answer this by saying that, until a few months ago, I didn’t understand much about Islam – or care much about it – myself. I then stumbled across an excellent review (by Thomas Jackson at the American Renaissance site) of a book by counter-jihadist Dr Bill Warner, Mohammed and the Unbelievers (2006); that article, and a YouTube presentation by Warner (entitled ‘Why we are afraid, a 1400 years secret’), led me to read some of Warner’s books. His highly simplified editions of the Koran, the Sira (the authorised biography of Muhammad) and the Hadith (traditions of Muhammad) gave me a grasp of the doctrine. The truth of the matter is that Islam isn’t hard. A great deal of the world’s population believe in the Islamic doctrine because of its simplicity and clarity; it is – like communism – easy to understand.

One approach recommended by Warner is to stay on the topic of Islam at all times and to never speak of Muslims – just Islam. Otherwise, one gets bogged down in sociology, and is forced to reel off statistics on unemployment in the French banlieues, rape in Stockholm, female genital mutilation in Pakistan and the like. Sticking to Islam, the Islamic doctrine and the example of Muhammad, the most perfect of Muslims, keeps things simple.

I will issue a caveat here, however. Warner’s work will help you navigate through the treacherous waters of Islam, and it gives you an appreciation of the West’s history – much of the history of Europe since the time of the Holy Roman Empire is, in fact, the history of a struggle between European khafirs (unbelievers, non-Muslims, the equivalent of the Jews’ goyim) and Muslims. Warner understands Yockey’s Imperium (1948) better than most nationalists, even though he’s never read it. The trouble is, he’s not a racialist, and neither are any of the other prominent counter-jihadists. Some of them – such as David Wood, who runs the excellent site, AnsweringMuslims.Com – have non-white wives and mixed-race children.

This brings us to the following problem. Suppose a nationalist group holds an anti-Islam meeting, which is attended by a large number of people, or organises a demonstration against the latest Islamic terrorist outrage – and an Australian turns up with a Filipina wife. What do you do? What do you do if an evangelical Maori turns up? Or if it’s Pamela Gellar or some other counter-jihad Jewish activist…

We know that, at PEGIDA and EDL demonstrations, the march organisers will put a member of some ‘minority’ – a negro or an Indian – in the front so as to show the world that they aren’t ‘racist’ and ‘Nazi’. This fools no-one and placates no-one. It certainly doesn’t mollify the political establishment, which will continue to denounce them as ‘Islamophobes’, ‘racists’ and ‘bigots’ at every turn, and it alienates the Far Right, who will accuse them of being multi-cultists, ‘civic patriots’ and sell-outs to liberalism.

My response to the question posed above is, we’ll cross that bridge when we get to it. If you organise an event around Islam which brings a large turn-out, you relinquish your control to a certain extent. You won’t be able to screen people and turn away undesirables all of the time. That’s the price one pays for having a well-attended march. The Left understands this. Many of the large anti-war marches or anti-austerity marches are in fact composed of different groups within the Left – some of them anarchist, Maoist, Trotskyite, whatever-ist – who despise one another. Disunity pervades the Left, but the outside observer of these marches is given the impression of unity, size and power. The Left manages to put a lid on sectarian tensions for the sake of the event, and that’s the example we should follow.

The truth is that, for many decades, the Far Right hasn’t had much political experience, and as a result, they are not used to dealing with groups and parties of a different ideology. No doctrine has been developed in this area. Muslims, on the other hand, have had long experience in handling non-Muslims: Muhammad himself set the precedent of imposing a 50% tax (the jizya) on his non-Muslim subjects and making their lives so difficult that they were eventually forced to either convert or emigrate. Islam doesn’t believe in pluralism. Communism, in contrast, does – of a sort. After the war, the communists devised a system in which the communist parties ruled in a coalition as part of a ‘national’ or ‘patriotic’ front; in East Germany, the communist party worked in a coalition – the SED, or Socialist Unity Party – with the Social Democrats (the German equivalent of the Australian Labor Party). Contrary to popular belief, the communist states held elections, and by doing so were able to portray themselves as genuine multiparty democracies which allowed all parties and  interest groups to have a seat at the table. Successful communist regimes understood that even the rivals of the communist party deserved some form of representation. China holds to that principle today: some seats in the national assemblies are allocated to the non-communist parties as a concession, and even the deadly enemies of the Chinese communists – Chiang Kai-Shek’s Kuomintang – are allowed to participate as a minority party.

I direct attention to these historical examples because I believe that it’s time for nationalists to start thinking, seriously, about what they’ll do with all political groups – and racial groups – which oppose them. Most Australian nationalists seem to assume that their political enemies will flee the country to a nearby island after the nationalist ‘seizure of power’ – the same way Chiang Kai-Shek’s soldiers fled to Taiwan after 1949. All the Liberal, Labor, Democrat and Green people, all the horrible Trotskyites, Maoists, feminists, environmentalists and anarchists will banish themselves; as for the Chinese, Indians and other immigrants, they’ll start packing their bags on election night, after the crushing win of the Australian Patriotic White Man’s Party (or whatever it is) is announced. I don’t think that this is realistic. Any nationalist grouping will need to work with other parties, other tendencies, even non-Australian ethnic groups (such as the Aboriginals and Islanders) – this is common sense. The trouble lies in defining what ‘working with’ entails.

What is certain is that Labor, Liberal, the Greens, the Trotskyites, the Jews and others will only join a government of ‘national unity’, a ‘patriotic front’, with the nationalists if and only if the nationalists have caught them by the short and curlies. They must hold dominance, absolute power, over their rivals, just as the Islamists and communists do in their countries.

Politics manifests itself at almost every level – especially where large gatherings take place – and not just in the parliament; one can see a street march as a microsm of the political tendencies and groupings in Australia. So, one’s conduct at the level of a street march mirrors that at the federal level. I anticipate the objection (made by some readers) that if nationalists give ground and make concessions at the level of a street march – allowing Maoris, Jews and Christian Arabs to attend – then surely they’ll welcome the same ethnic groups into a federal coalition of ‘concerned patriot Aussies’ (‘Aussies’ of whatever race) whose only qualification for membership is anti-Islam. The white nationalist stance is that such a thing – a multiracial coalition – can’t be permitted, because nationalists should represent the interests of whites first and foremost, and only whites.

Jewish participation in nationalist politics presents us with a quandary, not just because of the racial angle but because of the political. Christian Arabs and evangelical Maoris won’t compete against nationalists for political power, but Jews will. After all, they are accustomed to power and to the exercise of it. Only a few weeks ago France sentenced the Holocaust denier Vincent Reynouard to two years jail as punishment for writing books that ‘anti-racist’ and Jewish groups disagreed with. Like the communists and the Islamists, political activists from the Jewish community are instinctive totalitarians – they must insert themselves into every nook and cranny in political life. In the US, Jewish intellectuals dominate all the political movements of whatever stripe – conservative, communist, neoliberal, progressive social liberal, you name it; American Jewry puts bets on every horse. (Putin, it should be noted, follows the Jewish method – he has sprinkled Kremlin cash on both the Far Left and Far Right in Europe).
In Europe and the US, and here in Australia as well, they’ve approached the Far Right through the avenue of the counter-jihad movement and have scored successes there, and the sad fact of the matter is that much of the Far Right has caved in to Jewry. Le Pen claims to stand up for France’s Jews against Islam, the EDL waves the Israeli flag at demonstrations and has even made a show of burning a NSDAP flag; inappropriate comparisons are made between Islam and German National Socialism (comparisons which are highly insulting to the German people). The Far Right has bent over backwards to accommodate Jewry.

The bottom line is that we nationalists must retain our leading role. If a mass anti-Islam movement does appear, Australian Jewry can’t be allowed to take power and impose their pro-Israel, anti-German agenda.

How do we ensure that? At the marches and meetings of our anti-Islam group, we must make certain that Jewry’s favourite talking points – ‘Israel, the only democracy in the Middle East’, ‘European Jewry feels unsafe’ – are never brought up. If some anti-Islamist Israel lover does bring them up, we must quickly steer the discussion on to other things. What if some idiot, at a march, unfurls an Israeli flag? We’ll cross that bridge when we come to it. Suffice to say, we don’t yet have the power to snatch the flag from him and burn it, and bar him from future demonstrations.

The essential thing is, we must get in now to capitalise on the coming anti-Islam boom. If we don’t do it, others will step in and take over. Already Australian groups and micro-parties have appeared in imitation of Wilders and the EDL. We should ask ourselves, do we want Jewry – and liberals – to dominate anti-Islam discourse?

Tagged with:
 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Please enter CAPTCHA *